Those Hateful Little Lavrentiy Berias Of Amerikan Academia

When Dr. Alan Bloom decried the closing of the American mind, I think its a shame he obfuscated matters by being so totally overly optimistic. Closed is not the operative word. On most campuses these days the Amerikan mind is hermetically sealed. If you find courage in the idea of the glass being half full at the modern university, that just shows you are benighted enough to enjoy the flavor of warm horse urine.

The problem starts when otherwise capable academic institutions start entire departments of political correctness studies to appease the leftward regression of the intellectual zeitgeist. The parasites burrow in and the apple of learning then thoroughly rots to the core. Drexel University is the latest example of this depressing trend.

Drexel University used to be a place that turned out solid STEM types without the MIT egocentrism. They now are being converged to the SJW narrative and will henceforth produce Pajama Boy piles of marxian pony poop. At least that will be the absolutely pathetic level of fake credentialism we can expect from future Drexel University grads if Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher is now indicative of the quality of their faculty. He had an interesting Christmas wish when he sat on Santa’s Lap. This was conveyed via Twitter below.

All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.

I was less ambitious as a kid. All I wanted Christmas were my two front teeth. But then again, I’m no expert on race relations and therefore don’t make fabulous claims about which ones need to be genocided.

Dr. Ciccariello-Maher dug himself in deeper by attempting to explain his way out of the obvious hatred of his statements, which because he is a low-testosterone Leftist, took the form of a passive-aggressive defense in which he claimed to be a moral guardian of us all:

“On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, ‘white genocide,'” he said in an e-mail. ‘For those who haven’t bothered to do their research, ‘white genocide’ is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies (and most recently, against a tweet by State Farm Insurance). It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I’m glad to have mocked it.”

Bad news for Dr. Ciccariello-Maher: Even the United Nations agrees that demographic displacement is ethnic genocide. In other words, he has confused the source of the message, which he dislikes, with the validity of the message, which is something an academic should never do. Clearly the man has such anger that it has compelled him to ignore his professional ethics in order to score ideological points in his lonely, doubt-ridden and unfocused mind.

Drexel is suffering condign humiliation as a result of Dr. Ciccariello-Maher’s coruscating Twitter brilliance. They are arranging a meeting to spank his pee-pee and send him on his way basically unpunished.

Ciccariello-Maher is nothing new. He’s not even the most virulent pathogen in the bloodstream. He reminds me of an another virtue-signaling anti-white white boy. He is the Ward Churchill wannabe of 2016. He doesn’t have a 9-11 Event to celebrate, so he just acts like the Kwame Nkrumo of Twitter. In Churchill’s parlance; he’s just a Little Lavrentiy Beria. A Little Lavrentiy Beria who fills out the paperwork and checks all the boxes for wannabe genociders.

I doubt we have to take him all that seriously. Drexel University doesn’t either. Christmas is just another superstitious sky-faerie festival to all the smart guys at DU. It will all blow over and Dr. CM will go back to his Twitter rants as soon as the carnival moves on to the next ridiculous outrage.

Of course there is now something else that really shouldn’t be taken all that seriously either: a diploma from Drexel. This is a shame. The place used to be worth something before the Leftists wrecked it. The same can be said about the United States of Amerika as well at this point…

Tags: , , , ,

21 Responses to “Those Hateful Little Lavrentiy Berias Of Amerikan Academia”

  1. DysgenicGarbagge says:

    It’s nice to see that there is push back to these guys but I think that that is not because the higher ups disagree, they just realize that it was crap like this that sends moderates to the right and those all ready on the right into full on alt-right. I still don’t think academia can be saved. The higher costs plus the complete lack of return, the opposite of a return really, will lead to less enrollment. This will just lead to a cascading domino effect of school closures. It won’t come at once, but as faculty retire they will not be replaced, and whole departments will not be able to function and be closed. I honestly don’t know what the full social ramifications of this will be, but I hope the federal government doesn’t step in and keep the dead institutions going like a zombie.

    • I still don’t think academia can be saved.

      I do not think anything can be saved. To view our goal as being “to save all of academia” is to fall into the egalitarian trap. There are some academic institutions which could be saved, and the first step is to remove all government oversight, loans and funding for education at any level. Make it all private from daycare through graduate school.

      I think that that is not because the higher ups disagree, they just realize that it was crap like this that sends moderates to the right and those all ready on the right into full on alt-right.

      I agree. Their response was more like hushed whispers to the person who is cluelessly about to reveal the actual agenda when they should keep it hidden, than the clear disapproval of people who actually disagree. “Ssssh — don’t tell them what we are supporting is white genocide, let them think it is varied ethnic foods for another generation!”

    • Asian Reactionary says:

      I don’t think by definition academia can be saved.

      Fundamentally, academics gain status and money – and survive, by publishing papers. This publish or perish mentality means that every single racial theorist or feminist nutso is not only motivated to come up with new complaints, but fundamentally must do so in order to continue to advance and stay employed.

      Its honestly ridiculous. Conquest’s Second Law comes to mind.

      • This publish or perish mentality means that every single racial theorist or feminist nutso is not only motivated to come up with new complaints, but fundamentally must do so in order to continue to advance and stay employed.

        True, but most of those papers go nowhere. The real problem is that in the 1960s, Leftists took over academia by regulating (1) who got hired and (2) what theories became their darlings each year. At that point, sanity was filtered out and insanity promoted, sometimes for no reason other than that it cucked the population by forcing them to accept drivel as wisdom.

  2. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    I might be optimistic but I do not think Dr. Bloom was. He saw an essential contradiction in the Enlightenment itself and he definitely saw the universities (the humanities and social studies departments) as the major source of the problem.

    • He is correct. The Enlightenment™ reduced theory to a simple idea: human reason, which by the converse requires all human intentions to be seen as “reasonable,” which in turn inverts logic from reality-based to human preference based. At that point, the humanities become unmoored, and go from historical basis to humanitarian basis as we see in social studies. Another way to put this is that as the decay spread, the most vulnerable and most vital points were destroyed first.

      • Ulrich Arbes says:

        One issue where I disagree: What is called the Enlightenment has been a bunch of philosophies/ideologies that do not have that much in common.

        Enlightenment understood as radical individualism is only the worst-case scenario. The Kantian Categorical Imperative is so useless that it destroys morality under the disguise of improving it. If that was intention or just extremely bad judgement, I do not know.

        However, there are other, totally different strains of Enlightenment. Take Bacon´s Nova Atlantis which is a pure Technocracy. Rule of Reason, indeed, but Reason understood as Science&Engineering. Not a trace of individualism. To Enlightenment thus understood, your critique does not apply.

        • This takes us back to a common debate:

          Leftists: “This exception disproves the rule!”

          Rightists: “This exception proves the rule!”

          There are always outliers, but the (1) intersectional content and thus topic and (2) historical effect of The Enlightenment™ was a focus on human reason in the way I described.

          • Ulrich Arbes says:

            Then I am neither a Leftist nor a Rightist, but an Empirist. ;-)

            A Rule (unlike a Law) is never true or false, strictly speaking, only more or less useful. And it stands to reason that, if exceptions become too many, the Rule decreases in usefulness.

            Sir Bacon was not really an outlier, but (arguably) the CREATOR of the Enlightenment, so I am not yet prepared to discard him as atypical.

            That the Enlightenment went off-track I do not doubt, but for me the question is exactly WHEN and HOW and WHY. Or we throw out the baby with the bathwater and run the risk to suddenly find ourselves making common cause with #Sciencemustfall Leftist Radicals.

            • Then I am neither a Leftist nor a Rightist, but an Empirist.

              What is an empirist? If you mean empiricist, then the question becomes interpretation.

              Sir Bacon was not really an outlier, but (arguably) the CREATOR of the Enlightenment

              Highly doubtful, unfortunately, as the Enlightenment was a crest of a wave that followed the Peasant Revolts and the Magna Carta, which itself followed some crucial political events. It is worth mentioning the Mongol invasions here as well, given that the society of Genghis Khan was arguably the closest thing to Soviet Communism to pre-exist it.

  3. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    He was not religious but he saw that the Law of Moses was an important source of value. [That he saw in his relatives] But he was also aware that the problems of the Enlightenment did not pop up spontaneously. They had arisen as the problems with Throne and Altar in the Middle Ages had become apparent. That is he did not see any essential workable approach at all. And he thought that unless one was found we are all in hot soup.

    • The problem with “throne and altar” in my view is the “and.” There can be only one source of authority, and when it is divided between church and nation, the competition ensures that no one wins, everything is a compromise, and therefore, that stupidity reigns just as it does in modernity. This may have been the reason for Nietzsche’s ire at Christianity, which appears to be dying slowly as churches liberalize.

      • Avraham Rosenblum says:

        Nietzsche was unhappy with the church from a few aspects. Certainly he did not want them to have political power. But his critique ran against the whole institution. That is hard to accept. It is almost as if he is saying they never did anything good. That seem unreasonable. If all they did was to tell people that they ought to b decent and moral and then that affected only one person, that would already be aa great advantage.

        • His attack was more of this nature: the core of their belief is to reject reality in favor of a fantasy world (dualism) and so the damage done is greater than any imaginable good.

          My caveat to him is that Crowdism infested Christianity, just like it infected the humanities. Does this negate them? — only in their Crowdism form, and in Crowdism we find the real damage.

          The Enlightenment,™ the French Revolution, et al were a formalization of a mentality of rationalization of civilization decay which had been growing for some time. I trace it back to confusion over the use of tools that occurs in social settings, but this also happened alongside what Bruce Charlton describes, which is that societies become bottom-heavy thanks to improved infant mortality. Since the same thing happens in companies over time, because they hire many people and retain the incompetents (Peter Principle), we have to look at that as more accurate than Nietzsche’s critique, although he is surely right about popular interpretations of religion; it is wise to add, however, that this phenomenon is not exclusive to religion.

          • Svmmoned says:

            So we arrive at old conclusion that mass, not merely mismanaged as that view can only lead to more control, but above all misplaced (platonic injustice) will corrupt by its very nature everything that is beyond its abilities. But there are also crowdism-friendly ideas and doctrines, and christianity seems to have some of them at its roots. Dualism however can be spared. Nietzsche choose to attack version that was already compromised by the masses.

            • Not just the masses, but human intent, corrupts everything. Human intent is the opposite of self-discipline. It is the notion of “I want this to be true, therefore I will make it true in my version of the world, and thus it will come to be true.”

              For that reason…

              Nietzsche choose to attack version that was already compromised by the masses.

              This is the essence of my feeling on his attribution to Christianity of the failure of Western Civilization (which is in itself, not quite the whole picture).

              However:

              Dualism however can be spared.

              I cannot endorse dualism. It is denial of logic and of reality. Instead, I choose monism as a more accurate depiction of reality, because in this notion any metaphysical and physical worlds act by the same logical rules and are comprehensible but esoteric.

  4. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    The Alt Right is suggesting a return to kings but not to Altar.(the Catholic Church). They are also suggesting nationalism.
    Both seem very close to Hegel with his Constitutional Monarchy and importance of the super organism. I however have a lot of trouble with Hegel.

    • Rightfully so. Hegel bungled a lot. It seems to me that the point of the Alt Right “return to kings” is that kings, not priests, must be our ceremonial leaders. This avoids having divided authority between nation (aristocracy) and church.

      The idea of a constitutional monarchy fails because it divides power between nation (aristocracy) and laws, which are produced by financial interests. As far as the “super organism,” culture is part of it, and as calculating/thinking entities, cultures may create their own entrypoint into the metaphysical, which is why religion is so closely tied to culture and so toxic when it is removed from it through universalism so that priests can be politicians.

  5. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    I suspect Jesus will outlast Nietzsche. And after all, there is some good support for Jesus, i.e. Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm. Not that I do not see the problems with the whole thing, but I still think there is a lot of good there. I admit my experiences with Christians probably has something to do with my attitude. Also there is one fellow from the Middle Ages, Avraham Abulafia that I have a lot of respect for that wrote about this subject in a way that got me to be able to see the good side of it. Nietzsche is good at critique, but not very good at seeing positive value.

    • Nietzsche is good at critique, but not very good at seeing positive value.

      I wonder if that is so; he writes convincingly in favor of a many of good and positive things like warlike behavior, acceptance of tragedy, and will toward excellence.

      I still think there is a lot of good there.

      I agree on this point, but wonder if a lot of good in a flawed framework will be workable. For example, in a bad design, good in the details only strengthens the bad.

  6. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    I just can not see Nietzsche’s point about Christianity. I have no idea what he thinks is any better. I mean personally I hold with the Law of Moses but somehow or other it does not seem to me that is the direction Nietzsche is taking. Nor is the implementation very clear. There seem to be plenty of people that get just Straight Law of Moses all wrong. But Nietzsche just seems to have an ax to grind. He does not seem to direct his critique towards Eastern religions which have all the same flaws that he points out.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>